M/S VIJAY PULSES,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 4(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Vijay Pulses, Dcit, Cpc, 12, Sajan Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafv 9714 E Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

disallowance in terms of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va). M/s.Vijay Pulses Page 4 of 8 5. Regarding

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. The appellant has also challenged the addition made on protective basis on the contention that the said amount

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. The appellant has also challenged the addition made on protective basis on the contention that the said amount

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. The appellant has also challenged the addition made on protective basis on the contention that the said amount

KWALITY MOTEL SHIRAZ,BHOPAL vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEBER, SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTNT MEMBER Kwality Motel Shiraz 1, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal-462021

24)(x) which is held in trust by assessee-employer, thus, said marked difference was to be borne while interpreting obligation of assessee- employer under section 43B of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme held that the non obstante clause under section 43B could not apply in case of amounts which were held in trust as was case of employee

THE ADIT CPC , BENGALURU vs. SUNDERLAL MOOLCHAND JAIN, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S Sunderlal Moolchand Adit, Cpc, Jain Tobacconist Private Bangalore Limited, Vs. 31, Kacchi Mohalla, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaecs 7779 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

24)(x) which is held in trust by assessee-employer, Sunderlal Moolchand Jain Page 6 of 7 thus, said marked difference was to be borne while interpreting obligation of assessee-employer under section 43B of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme held that the non obstante clause under section 43B could not apply in case of amounts which were held

SAHARAYN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)\narose. This is explicit clear from the provision of the said section which is enumerated as\nunder:-\n\"40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38 the following\namounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head \"\nProfits and gains of business or profession,\" -\n\"(ia) [thirty

INFOBEANS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE, M.P.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section 14(2A) , prior to working out disallowance as per Rule 8D of the Rules 62 . 23. The Ld AR rested his arguments with a prayer that considering the entire factual aspect of the matter, the direction of the Ld PCIT issued to the AO to make disallowance u/s 14A deserves to be annulled. 24

PRASHANTI ENGINEERING WORKS P LTD,PITHAMPUR vs. THE ASST.DCIT ,CPC, BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Under Section 139(1).

section 139(1). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Rs. 5,494/- Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by disallowing payment of Rs. 24

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 2(1) , INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance under 14A read with Rule 8D. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly made disallowance/addition in respect of Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 24

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT-CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance under 14A read with Rule 8D. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly made disallowance/addition in respect of Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 24

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance under 14A read with Rule 8D. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly made disallowance/addition in respect of Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 24

ANIL PRAKASH TYAGI,JABAPUR vs. ADIT,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Income Tax Return & Can It Be Disallowed In The Intimation Passed U/S. 143(1) Intimation.

24)(x) which is held in trust by assessee-employer, thus, said marked difference was to be borne while interpreting obligation of assessee-employer under section 43B of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme held that the non obstante clause under section 43B could not apply in case of amounts which were held in trust as was case of employee

SHRI ARUN KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA,INDORE vs. ASSTT, DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Nimar Motors P. Ltd. Dcit, Cpc, Jetapur Sanawad Road Bangalore Vs. Khargone (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaccn 9368 D Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Smt. Chhaya Balwani Dcit, Cpc, Green Height, Bangalore Vs. 27, Gulmohar Colony Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aotpb 5766 P Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Shri Rohit Panchal Dcit, Cpc, 47, Roop Ram Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Manik Bagh, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Amvpp 7291 D Assessee By Shri Hiresh Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

24)(x) which is held in trust by assessee-employer, thus, said marked difference was to be borne while interpreting obligation of assessee-employer under section 43B of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme held that the non obstante clause under section 43B could not apply in case of amounts which were held in trust as was case of employee

SMT CJJAYA BALWANI,BHOPAL vs. THE CPO, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Nimar Motors P. Ltd. Dcit, Cpc, Jetapur Sanawad Road Bangalore Vs. Khargone (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaccn 9368 D Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Smt. Chhaya Balwani Dcit, Cpc, Green Height, Bangalore Vs. 27, Gulmohar Colony Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aotpb 5766 P Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Shri Rohit Panchal Dcit, Cpc, 47, Roop Ram Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Manik Bagh, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Amvpp 7291 D Assessee By Shri Hiresh Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

24)(x) which is held in trust by assessee-employer, thus, said marked difference was to be borne while interpreting obligation of assessee-employer under section 43B of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme held that the non obstante clause under section 43B could not apply in case of amounts which were held in trust as was case of employee

NIMAR MOTORS P LTD,KHARGONE vs. DCIT/CPC , BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Nimar Motors P. Ltd. Dcit, Cpc, Jetapur Sanawad Road Bangalore Vs. Khargone (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaccn 9368 D Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Smt. Chhaya Balwani Dcit, Cpc, Green Height, Bangalore Vs. 27, Gulmohar Colony Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aotpb 5766 P Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Shri Rohit Panchal Dcit, Cpc, 47, Roop Ram Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Manik Bagh, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Amvpp 7291 D Assessee By Shri Hiresh Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

24)(x) which is held in trust by assessee-employer, thus, said marked difference was to be borne while interpreting obligation of assessee-employer under section 43B of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme held that the non obstante clause under section 43B could not apply in case of amounts which were held in trust as was case of employee

SHRI ROHIT PANCHAL,INDORE vs. THE DCIT-CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Nimar Motors P. Ltd. Dcit, Cpc, Jetapur Sanawad Road Bangalore Vs. Khargone (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaccn 9368 D Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Smt. Chhaya Balwani Dcit, Cpc, Green Height, Bangalore Vs. 27, Gulmohar Colony Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aotpb 5766 P Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Shri Rohit Panchal Dcit, Cpc, 47, Roop Ram Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Manik Bagh, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Amvpp 7291 D Assessee By Shri Hiresh Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

24)(x) which is held in trust by assessee-employer, thus, said marked difference was to be borne while interpreting obligation of assessee-employer under section 43B of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme held that the non obstante clause under section 43B could not apply in case of amounts which were held in trust as was case of employee

HONOURABLE PACKAGING P LTD ,DHAR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Income Tax Return & Can It Be Disallowed In The 143(1).

24)(x) which is held in trust by assessee-employer, thus, said marked difference was to be borne while interpreting obligation of assessee-employer under section 43B of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme held that the non obstante clause under section 43B could not apply in case of amounts which were held in trust as was case of employee

SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR GULIA,BHOPAL vs. THRE ASSTT.DIRECTORE OF INCOME TAX ,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

24)(x) on account of disallowance of employee’s contribution received by assessee towards Provident Fund/Employees State Insurance Fund (PF/ESI) by way of deduction from salaries but not paid to relevant funds upto the due dates prescribed under PF/ESI laws. Aggrieved by such adjustment, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). During first-appeal